Shortening substitute not always easy or best

Q: I would like to substitute liquid oil for solid shortening in my cake recipe to make it more healthy. I wondered if it is a one-to-one substitution or another proportion.-- C.B., Grand Rapids

A: Substituting oil for shortening is not a simple substitution. It may sound like it would be a healthier option, but you may not like the results.

Here are some considerations:

The online reference Cook's Thesaurus recommends you avoid substituting oil for solid fat in cookies, cakes and pastries, as the oil will make the resulting product dense and look greasy. The site also says if you still want to make this substitution, you should use 3 parts oil to 4 parts solid shortening. For example, if the recipe calls for 1 cup of shortening, you would use 3/4 cup of oil.

The thesaurus suggests if you use oil instead of shortening, you should consider using an extra egg and extra sugar to add volume (the shortening acts to incorporate air into the baked goods; it's not just a fat source).

It doesn't sound like substituting oil for shortening will make your baked goods more healthful.

Another source, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, says oil is 100 percent fat, while the solid fats (shortening, margarine, butter) are lower in fat when compared cup for cup.

But if the recipe happened to call for melted shortening, the liquid oil would be a perfect substitute.

I microwave oatmeal every morning. Is it better to use regular oats or quick oats?

-- C.C., Grand Rapids

You may guess regular "old-fashioned" oats would be best, because they appear more grainy, but the nutritional value for both is the same.

Why? Because both are whole-grain oats; they simply are rolled to different thicknesses. The quick oats are rolled thinner to allow for quicker cooking.

It boils down to your preference. Either type provides about 150 calories and 4 grams of fiber in one cup of cooked oats.